Phantom fear of Taliban is driving the war in Afghanistan - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/02/dabashi.afghan.troops.taliban/index.html#cnnSTCText)

Here is a voice of reason on Afghanistan and yet why are such voices of reason so far from being listened too by those involved in fighting the Taliban. Only today even ex Australian Prime Minister John Howard was saying that Australia must say in Afghanistan to the end. But what end do such people perceive? The utter devistation of the place so it resembles Germany at the end of WWII, or the deforestation of Vietnam? Perhaps they should look and see what a shambles the place is now.

The article above suggests that the US and ISAF is fighting an idea in Afghanistan, but the Afghans are fighting an invader. How many hearts are won by the report of a serious friendly fire incidenthttp://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/07/afghanistan.airstrike.probe/index.html and guess who got the heavy end of the incident; Afghan forces, the very people needed to secure the country. How much money and effort was wasted by the destruction of trained forces by careless tactics and gun happy forces.

So here is the tactic, the new direction, so eagerly sought, give Afghanistan back to the Afghanis, replace the military aid with civil aid and leave it to them. I venture to suggest much of the Pakistani Taliban problem would be solved if there was no war in Afghanistan

I bet the fear of the Taliban by your typical Afghani woman is quite real.

I bet the fear of the Taliban by your typical Afghani woman is quite real.

And I wonder what they have done for the last 1200 years? Haven't you noticed that women in the Muslim world are tending to revert to the older forms of clothing? I see women in full burga here, there is no reason to fear the Taliban here. Actually when I was in Pakistan I found the form of women's dress there took the display away and it was somehow better.

I think we fear what we don't understand, these people appear to be right over the top to us because we have no understanding of their culture

There was no war and no invaders while Afghanistan was a training center and refuge for Al Quaida, was there?

It seems that many people think all this started after 9/11, but that is just not so.

If you think the long range view is other than either victory or defeat (for both sides) then you don't understand the issue.

Islam has decreed that it will have world domination. It has pursued that policy whenever and wherever possible ever since its beginning. Just because not all Muslims are supportive does not change that fact.

The Islamic fundamentalists will never give up this goal.

I think that if the crusaders had not stopped Islam in their generation that is is possible that we would all be under Shi'ra law today.

The problem with the West is that if the problem is not solved within 12 months, we will give up and quit.

There was no war and no invaders while Afghanistan was a training center and refuge for Al Quaida, was there?

It seems that many people think all this started after 9/11, but that is just not so.

If you think the long range view is other than either victory or defeat (for both sides) then you don't understand the issue.

Islam has decreed that it will have world domination. It has persued that policy whenever and wherever possible ever since its beginning. Just because not all Muslims are supportive does not change that fact.

The Islamic fundamentalists will never give up this goal.

I think that if the crusaders had not stopped Islam in their generation that is is possible that we would all be under Shi'ra law today.

The problem with the West is that if the problem is not solved within 12 months, we will give up and quit.

We in the west have been fighting Islam for 1,400 hundred years. What we have achieved in that time is to push it back into an enclave defined by what is known as the 10-40 window. What happens in Afghanistan will not define the fight against Islam, but continued pressure there might cause an intensification of Islamic expansionism. We are fortunate that those we fight in Afghanistan are Islamic fundamentalists with an agenda most Muslims find unacceptable. We are giving Islamic fundamentalists the ammunition to spread their ideas, if we take the attention away from them they will wither away back to the few they really are.

The crusaders didn't stop Islam, Islam actually reached the gates of Vienna and southern France long after the crusaders lost Jerusalem. The great difficulty with Islam is that it is not only a religion it is also a political force.
I actually think what stopped Islam was terrain.

I know the Islamists seek world domination but the world is more than they know. They are not the cohesive force we think them to be. We are being laughed at by a few thousand islamic tribal fanatics in back woods Afghanistan and we are disillusioned enough to think this really matters. That the fate of western civilisation hangs in the balance. We have lost perspective and there isn't a statesman among us. The barabrians are not at the gates

A little shariia Law might have stopped some of the excesses we see in western society today, but then remaining true to Christian principles would have done the same. When we stop trying to solve our problems at the point of a gun we might find the problem isn't as big as we think it is.

You seek an answer to Islam. Secularisation and prosperity is what Islam cannot overcome. Just like in Christian countries, when the population becomes prosperous they turn to secular pursuits. A couple of generations and the Jihad is forgotten. However you are right we don't have the long term perspective

Your first sentence states it has been 1400 years, and in your last sentence you state that it will go away in a couple of generations? Which is it?

I think Charles, the hammer, Martel would have disagreed with your assessment of what stopped Arab invasion of Europe.

"a little sharia law" what western excesses would it have stopped? Women walking in public without approved male escort? Public acknowledgement of homosexuality? Freedom to practice any other religion or no religion at all?


G&P

The ironic thing is, it is the secular humanists PC crowd that serve as jihadist apologist that would suffer the most under sharia law.


G&P

Your first sentence states it has been 1400 years, and in your last sentence you state that it will go away in a couple of generations? which is it?

I think Charles, the hammer, Martel would have disagreed with your assesment of what stopped Arab invasion of Europe.

"a little sharia law" what western excesses would it have stopped? Women walking in public without approved male escort? Public acknowledgement of homosexuality? Freedom to practice any other religion or no religion at all?


G&P

I spoke of radical Fundamentalism not the whole of Islam. Every empire reaches a stage where logistics take over and expansion is stemmed not so much by the enemy but by the shear effort needed to prosecute the war.
We are beginning to see this in Afghanistan, the terrain and the enemy's ability to use it is overcoming our will to build and maintain the effort. Ah Yes Martel certainly consolidated Christian Europe and checked the Muslim advance but it took 700 years to remove them from Europe. It is doubtfull that Charlemange would have done anything about them if they had not attacked the franks.

What excesses?; well you only have to look around you. A society awash with alcohol, drugs, prostitution, theivery of every kind, licensiousness of every kind, hedonism. Shariia Law isn't just about women and homosexuals but you ignored the other part of my answer, we have lost Christian values too

By your word choice you think the US is an empire? Afghanistan is suppose to be a territory of the "empire?" At the rate in which the US gov has been spending money for the past 30-40 years, the trillion dollar healthcare bill, and not Afghanistan, may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back.


G&P

By your word choice you think the US is an empire? Afghanistan is suppose to be a territory of the "empire?" At the rate in which the US gov has been spending money for the past 30-40 years, the trillion dollar healthcare bill, and not Afghanistan, may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back.


G&P

Yes the United States is an empire, part of which it acquired from Spain. What is an empire if not a collection of states under one rule. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have been annexed for all intents and purposes.

Health care might break the budget but at least you will be spending money on the welfare of your own people, an admirable objective, where as waging war in the remote places of the Earth is not. America is too dependent on the military economy. Without a war somewhere the economy would stagnate

Did I miss something?

Was Reagan a wartime president?

PS: I think I see your problem. It is revealed in the link to
CNN News.

Oh, well!

Did I miss something?

Was Reagan a wartime president?

PS: I think I see your problem. It is revealed in the link to
CNN News.

Oh, well!

Hey Gal what has this to do with Reagan. I checked the link it pulls up an article on a recent friendly fire incident so the problem isn't mine

I refer to your remark about our economy stagnating unless we are in a time of war.

Did I misunderstand you?

I refer to your remark about our economy stagnating unless we are in a time of war.

Did I misunderstand you?

Not entirely, it is apparent that your industries need the stimulus that a war provides. If it had not been for the Iraq war you would have been in recession years ago, As I said you are too dependent on the military economy. The US is a very large arms provider to the world and ever since the Civil War, war has been good for business
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0106-12.htm
I am not alone in this contention, here is the single most important statement in the article below
"At the rate we're going, then, the military budgets will preempt the building of a green infrastructure and economy. Unless the military budget is reined in, it will be very difficult to find the resources to create the "green engine," to quote Barack Obama, that "can drive growth for many years to come."
Converting the permanent military economy to a green economy | Grist (http://www.grist.org/article/a-trillion-here-a-trillion-there)

So your suggestion is that we pull out and do nothing... while the Taliban retakes Afghanistan, turns it back into a training facility for terrorists, and launches more attacks against the West.

Or do you deny that they would do these things?

Your solution is to hide your head in the sand and hope that their next attack doesn't encroach on Australia. Withdraw. Don't fight terrorists. Let millions of women be raped for the pleasure of Taliban men. Let the country fall back into oppression. Give Al Qaeda a secure place to hide and reform so that they can attack again. Break faith with the Afghani people to whom we have made promisses of maintaining security and liberty. Give the enemy a victory that they can brag about and recruit more terrorists. Show the enemy that terrorism is a technique that works and can win wars. Give them an incentive to want to attack the western world again, because they will know that we won't stick it out and fight them... even if we attack them in return, we'll just eventually withdraw. And show the rest of the world that the USA will never keep to any mutual defense agreements we sign onto, which I'm sure will inspire confidence in us for the future.

What a brilliant solution, Paraclete. I wonder at your military brilliance. Such great military minds as Alexander the Great, Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon, Klauswics, Patton, Sherman and MacArthur would all bow down to your brilliance.

Actually, they'd be doubled over in laughter at the idiocy of such a plan.

Elliot

So your suggestion is that we pull out and do nothing...
Actually, they'd be doubled over in laughter at the idiocy of such a plan.Hello again, Elliot:

Nobody is suggesting that we pull out and do nothing... THAT'S a distortion you war mongers make. The fact is, we have no idea what the mission IS in Afghanistan.

Do I think Al Quaida might sneak back in?? Sure. So, why didn't the dufus kill Bin Laden when he had the chance? Should we destroy other countries where Al Quaida might sneak in? Why don't we make war on the countries where Al Quaida actually IS instead of where they MIGHT be? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense from a war mongers point of view? A short list of 'em would include Bali, Yemen, Somalia, and The Philippines just to name a few??

Nope, the dufus HAD the chance to end it. Really, he HAD the chance and blew it BIGTIME. Do you think there are NO consequences for blowing it BIGTIME on the worlds stage?? Of course, there is. One of them, is what to do about a war, where the dufus DITHERED for 8 freaking years??

Don't you get any of that?

excon

By the way . The President after months of agonizing Hamlet-like angst has come to a decision. He decided to give General McCrystal the troops he requested.

Hello again, Elliot:

Nobody is suggesting that we pull out and do nothing... THAT'S a distortion you war mongers make. The fact is, we have no idea what the mission IS in Afghanistan.

YOU don't know what the mission is. I know just fine what the mission is, and I have laid it out several times. You just refuse to accept the answer.

Just because YOU are confused about the mission doesn't mean anyone else is.


Do I think Al Quaida might sneak back in?? Sure. So, why didn't the dufus kill Bin Laden when he had the chance?

First of all, we couldn't find him. Could have something to do with the ROE that our soldiers were saddled with by the idiotic politicians on the left that kept them from acting. So the question becomes why didn't CLINTON kill him when he had the chance and the shooters on site to do it?

Second of all, if OBL was dead, would that mean that AQ would cease to exist? Why are you equating the assassination of OBL with the demise of AQ? You seem to be the only person doing that. Do you really think that if OBL was dead, all the other terrorists would simply lay down their suicide belts and go home?


Should we destroy other countries where Al Quaida might sneak in?

Nope. We should support those countries in their efforts to keep AQ out.


Why don't we make war on the countries where Al Quaida actually IS instead of where they MIGHT be?

You mean we should go to Iraq and Afghanistan? What a great idea.


A short list of 'em would include Bali, Yemen, Somalia, and The Philippines just to name a few??

All good targets... all in good time.


Nope, the dufus HAD the chance to end it. Really, he HAD the chance and blew it BIGTIME.

Yep... he really blew it when he sent the US military to Afghanistan and Iraq, and Al Qaeda sent all their terrorists to those places too... and our soldiers mowed them down in droves. Yeah... I can see why you would call that a missed opportunity...


Do you think there are NO consequences for blowing it BIGTIME on the worlds stage??

I think that IF Bush had blown it then yes there would be terrible consequences. But he didn't. He went where the terrorists were, had the military blow the sh!t out of them, and they ended up running away... those that were left.

Or are you saying that there were no AQ terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan... despite the fact that they trained in Iraq and operated in Afghanistan where OBL was hiding.


Of course, there is. One of them, is what to do about a war, where the dufus DITHERED for 8 freaking years??

Oh... that's simple. We should actually start FIGHTING the war, just like we did in Iraq... y'know... where we won despite your attempts to spin victory into defeat.


Don't you get any of that?

Excon

I get all of it. I just think its BS.

Elliot

First of all, we couldn't find him. Could have something to do with the ROE that our soldiers were saddled with by the idiotic politicians on the left that kept them from acting.Hello again, Elliot:

So, the dufus couldn't WIN because, even though he was commander in chief, and even though he had majorities in BOTH houses of congress, some lefty congressmen stopped him?

Dude! Do you ever listen to yourself?

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

So, the dufus couldn't WIN because, even though he was commander in chief, and even though he had majorities in BOTH houses of congress, some lefty congressmen stopped him?

Dude! Do you ever listen to yourself?

excon

Actually, what I mean is that he won DESPITE all of those things.

As for your comments... Obama has majorities in both houses, is commander in chief, and some righty senator named Lieberman is going to kill health care?

Dude, do you ever listen to yourself?

Majorities ain't everything.

Elliot

Actually, what I mean is that he won DESPITE all of those things.Hello again, Elliot:

So, we WON in Afghanistan.. Dude, you got too many wars going on to keep 'em straight. Let me know when you figure out which one we were talking about.

Dude!

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

So, we WON in Afghanistan.. Dude, you got too many wars going on to keep 'em straight. Lemme know when you figure out which one we were talking about.

Dude!

excon

Nice try at obfuscation...

No, we won in Iraq. We WILL win in Afghanistan if we use the same basic strategy.

But you deny that we won in Iraq, so I don't expect you to admit that we can win in Afghanistan either. You are stuck in a loser mentality.

YOU lost in Vietnam (actually you didn't, the politicians did) and so you can't possibly see any situation in which the US military can ever win. Not in Iraq and not in Afghanistan. You're still stuck in 1969 where the US military are the "bad guys" and can never win, and you never came home from that war.

Well the world has passed you by, and we've learned a few lessons since then. You ought to try catching up to the rest of us.

Elliot

So your suggestion is that we pull out and do nothing... while the Taliban retakes Afghanistan, turns it back into a training facility for terrorists, and launches more attacks against the West.


What a brilliant solution, Paraclete. I wonder at your military brilliance.

Elliot

No my solution is not to pull out and do nothing but to convert the military effort to a civilian effort. It is a ridiculous idea to garrison every Afghanistan town to provide security. Why did the Taliban take over in the first place? Because the corruption in the place was so endemic it was an affront to them and the presence of foreign forces and their practices is an affront to them. That they have behaved excessively themselves is not debated. The Americans behave excessively, should we invade America? Many of those who did are probably now dead. They only harbour Al Qaida because they are fellow travellers, people who will fight for the same cause. But the Pustun people are the dominant ethnic group, it is their country. Give the country a viable civilian government and the Taliban will go back to their hills. Maintain a corrupt government and they will continue to fight


If Al Qaida was going to attack my country it would have done so when it had the resources. The quarrel is with America and the reason they attacked you was your military presence in Saudi Arabia. They have some secondary objectives regarding the Palestinians and they see you as failing to protect them by siding with Israel. This cannot be a holy war against the Taliban but that is what it has become. The objectives in Afghanistan have been achieved, The Taliban government deposed and Al Qaida pushed out of Afghanistan. If I follow your logic and strategy you will next attack Pakistan to defeat the Taliban and deny Al Qaida a base of operations and WMD. What a brilliant strategy ensuring an ongoing war for generations. Know this well, The Pakistani people have no love for the Americans, they only fight the Taliban because of lawlessness. Pakistan already provides that training and recruiting ground for terrorists you think your presence in Afghanistan denies Al Qaida

No my solution is not to pull out and do nothing but to convert the military effort to a civilian effort.

Yeah... because civillians are better at fighting a war in the mountains against armed terrorists with RPGs, mortars and heavy weapons than soldiers are.

Bwahahahahahahaha

Elliot

If Al Qaida was going to attack my country it would have done so when it had the resources.

They did.

May 2, 2004 - Two Americans, two Britons, an Italian and an Australian were killed and nineteen Saudi police officers were injured when 4 assailants opened fire on the personnel of a Saudi contractor in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia.

September 9, 2004 - The Australian Embassy in Jakarta is attacked by a suicide bomber in a car. 9 are killed. 180 injured. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by Jemaah Islamiyah, an AQ sub-group.

November 8, 2005 - Police foil attacks in Sydney and Melbourne, arresting several Muslim terrorists.

You may not be a MAIN target, but you're still a target. You are on their radar. Yeah, you guys haven't been hit too hard yet. But just remember, the word "yet" is an acronym for "You're Elligible Too".

Elliot

Yeah... because civillians are better at fighting a war in the mountains against armed terrorists with RPGs, mortars and heavy weapons than soldiers are.

Bwahahahahahahaha

Elliot

The whole idea is not to be fighting in the mountains, so far that has proven very unproductive

May 2, 2004 -
September 9, 2004 -
November 8, 2005 -

Do you live in the past? There are more recent incidents than this

Next you will be saying the bombing of the Marriot in Indonesia was an attack on Australia. Targets of opportunity, Elliot, but if it had been America they would have bombed the crap out of Indonesia. We know JI doesn't like us because we helped throw Indonesia out of East Timor. We present a greater target in this region than America, but these attacks are sporadic and the death throes of fundamentalism in the region rather than a real threat. This has little to do with Al Qaida and a lot to do with local politics.

Yes we have Muslim terrorist cells here just like you do in the US. We have been successful in finding and neutralising them. Perhaps this is because they are few and lacking organisation and direction because you have neutralised AL Qaida elsewhere

The whole idea is not to be fighting in the mountains, so far that has proven very unproductive

Unproductive to whom? The Soviet Union? Yeah, they couldn't handle it.

Our soldiers, though, are doing a lot better. We haven't lost a single engagement in those mountains. Not one. And casualties have been extremely low in Afghanistan... even in the mountains. There have been a total of 802 US casualties in Afghanistan in 8 years of operations (as of 9/23/09). That is an extremely low casualty rate by any standard. By comparison, insurgent fatalities have been listed at between 23,000 and 23,500, with 1,000 POWs captured. That is a rate of exchange that any military commander in history would have been grateful for... 2805:1 in our favor.

Our soldiers can do better still with enough troops the properly blanket the areas that need coverage.

Don't assume that just because the Soviets couldn't fight in the Afghan mountains that we can't. It is an incorrect assumption. The US Soldier, especially it's Spec Ops soldier, is better than that. So are the Australian soldiers who are there... roughly 1,500 of them.

For all the talk about how Afghanistan is a disaster in the making, it just simply isn't true... not by anyone with a real understanding of war.

Elliot

Clete, I think your assessment of our economy is flawed, in that you say it is based primarily on wartime economy.

Reagan took office when inflation and unemployment were both rampant.

Reagan opted for supply side economics, and we enjoyed about 20 years of good economic growth.

Seems we never learn from the past, though.

For all the talk about how Afghanistan is a disaster in the making, it just simply isn't true... not by anyone with a real understanding of war.

Elliot

One summer does not a swallow make and aggregating old statistics doesn't make a victory. Even your own generals, who I expect have a real understanding of war, have said that without more troops they face defeat. Troops win engagements but they haven't won the war. Australia has suffered 11 dead in Afghanistan, does this mean we have won anything? No just like you we know that to secure anything needs more troops but that doesn't mean victory. The enemy has the ability to retire to a safe haven and regroup just as we do. There is no decisive victory, no territory held without fighting the same battles over and over again. Actually American casualties have been relatively low in Afghanistan they seem to die a third as much from other causes than from combat wounds so I don't know how it can be said they are engaging the enemy in their mountain strongholds and that doesn't appear to be the strategy that will be followed in the future. You see Afghan politics have taken over and the Afghans will feel more secure if the Americans are guarding the streets than if they are hunting Taliban. I expect that will be because there are less targets to shoot at

One summer does not a swallow make and aggregating old statistics doesn't make a victory. Even your own generals, who I expect have a real understanding of war, have said that without more troops they face defeat. Troops win engagements but they haven't won the war. Australia has suffered 11 dead in Afghanistan, does this mean we have won anything? no just like you we know that to secure anything needs more troops but that doesn't mean victory. The enemy has the ability to retire to a safe haven and regroup just as we do. there is no decisive victory, no territory held without fighting the same battles over and over again. Actually American casualties have been relatively low in Afghanistan they seem to die a third as much from other causes than from combat wounds so I don't know how it can be said they are engaging the enemy in their mountain strongholds and that doesn't appear to be the strategy that will be followed in the future. You see Afghan politics have taken over and the Afghans will feel more secure if the Americans are guarding the streets than if they are hunting Taliban. I expect that will be because there are less targets to shoot at

So... if the fact that we have won every engagement doesn't mean anything, and the fact that we have had so few casualties while the enemy has had 2800 times the number of casualties that we have had doesn't mean anything, then how do you define victory and defeat?

You have put forward the idea that we are "losing" in Afghanistan. What is the yardstick by which you make that judgment?

I have put forward measurable items (casualty rates, number of victories and losses in battle, exchange rates of attrition, etc.) with which to make my assessment. What measurable items do you put forward to counter them?

Am I saying that we don't need more troops? On the contrary, I am saying that we DO need them. I am just countering the argument that sending such troops would be futile because we are already losing. We are clearly NOT losing. And more troops would mean a quicker, less painful victory and more solid control of the entire region.

Unless you have a counter for that argument that is based on something tangible, it is just your unsupported opinion against my statistics.

Elliot

I have put forward measurable items (casualty rates, number of victories and losses in battle, exchange rates of attrition, etc.) with which to make my assessment. What measurable items do you put forward to counter them?

Unless you have a counter for that argument that is based on something tangible, it is just your unsupported opinion against my statistics.Hello again, Elliot:

I have an argument for you.

You put forward those numbers as though they mean what you want them to mean. But, they don't. In Vietnam, we killed a LOT more of them than we lost... But, those numbers didn't change the fact that we lost...

In terms of the drug war, which is another war you wingers think you won, and have the numbers to back you up. After all, as a result of your drug war, our prisons are chock full of drug dealers. In fact, we are the worlds LARGEST jailer. And, it means NOTHING in terms of whether we're winning...

The measurable items I have to put forward, is the huge and GROWING insurgency against us in Afghanistan, your numbers notwithstanding.

excon

[QUOTE=ETWolverine;2081244]

You have put forward the idea that we are "losing" in Afghanistan. What is the yardstick by which you make that judgment?

/QUOTE]

Your argument is spirous Elliot, "we have won because the enemy has more casualties than we do". Your own leaders have said that without more troops you will loose so obviously the situation isn't as you perceive. Yes, in the early days you extracted a heavy price from the enemy, but those are past glories. The enemy didn't accept your contention that he was defeated. This enemy has the sense to know they cannot win a large scale battle but neither can you secure the country, because they have effectively neutralised the value of your heavy weapons

You fail to realise you are not just fighting a few thousand fanatics, but a tribal people who rally when threatened. Your successes against the tribal people of your own nation has clouded your judgement. Many of the people you fight have been driven out and they live in camps on the other side of the border. If you think this is easy take a look across that border at the Pakistani campaign, they have the same idea as you, the enemy has more casualties than we do so we are winning, but nothing decisive has happened, there hasn't even been an engagement of any size, the enemy has just faded away.

If you leave Afghanistan then what remains is a few thousand fanatics with only their own people to fight

[QUOTE=ETWolverine;2081244]

You have put forward the idea that we are "losing" in Afghanistan. What is the yardstick by which you make that judgment?

/QUOTE]

Your argument is spirous Elliot, "we have won because the enemy has more casualties than we do". Your own leaders have said that without more troops you will loose so obviously the situation isn't as you perceive. Yes, in the early days you extracted a heavy price from the enemy, but those are past glories. The enemy didn't accept your contention that he was defeated. This enemy has the sense to know they cannot win a large scale battle but neither can you secure the country, because they have effectively neutralised the value of your heavy weapons

You fail to realise you are not just fighting a few thousand fanatics, but a tribal people who rally when threatened. Your successes against the tribal people of your own nation has clouded your judgement. Many of the people you fight have been driven out and they live in camps on the other side of the border. If you think this is easy take a look across that border at the Pakistani campaign, they have the same idea as you, the enemy has more casualties than we do so we are winning, but nothing decisive has happened, there hasn't even been an engagement of any size, the enemy has just faded away.

If you leave Afghanistan then what remains is a few thousand fanatics with only their own people to fight

I'm not buying that argument.

Before 9/11, there were fanatacs in Afghanistan, and they found someone to fight other than other fanatics, didn't they?

[QUOTE=paraclete;2081746]

I'm not buying that argument.

Before 9/11, there were fanatacs in Afghanistan, and they found someone to fight other than other fanatics, didn't they?

I'm sure your statement is correct when viewed from a western perspective. However there is a fanatical component to the way this war is being pursued now with targeted bombing by the US in Pakistan

Before 9/11 there was a war in Afghanistan between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance with the Northern Alliance likely to loose. Prior to that there had been a war between the Mujahadeen and the Soviet Union. Somewhere in this mix was Al Qaeda, who it appears also had a dislike for the US and pursued their objectives outside Afghanistan. The War in Afghanistan didn't stop Al Qaeda attacking London or Madrid from their base in Pakistan, all it really did was give Al Qaeda an enemy closer to home than the US to focus on

Hello again, Elliot:

I have an argument for you.

You put forward those numbers as though they mean what you want them to mean. But, they don't. In Vietnam, we killed a LOT more of them than we lost... But, those numbers didn't change the fact that we lost...

Actually, Vietnam just proves my point... if we don't actually FIGHT THE WAR, we will lose it, no matter how many battles we win. Right now, the ROE in Afghanistan is tying the hands of the military leaders. We are creating another Vietnam by playing politics instead of fighting the war. If we put the assets where they are needed, and if we change the ROE appropriately, we will win the war like we have won in Iraq. Just as we would have won in Vietnam if we had changed the ROE and put the assets where they would do the most good instead of playing politics.

Your Vietnam argument PROVES MY POINT. We WERE winning in Vietnam... right up until the politicians threw it all away. Your recommendation is that we allow the politicians to throw away Afghanistan as well, even though we are winning. What a wonderful strategy.


In terms of the drug war, which is another war you wingers think you won, and have the numbers to back you up. After all, as a result of your drug war, our prisons are chock full of drug dealers. In fact, we are the worlds LARGEST jailer. And, it means NOTHING in terms of whether we're winning...

The measurable items I have to put forward, is the huge and GROWING insurgency against us in Afghanistan, your numbers notwithstanding.

Excon

Actually, we have lost the drug war for the same reason that we are losing the war in Vietnam... we haven't put the assets where they are needed to do the job, and we've played politics instead of fighting the war.

The way to win a drug war is to destroy the crop at its source. That means going into Colombia and napalming the cacao crops, bombing the drug labs, and killing the cartel leaders. We haven't done that. Instead, we have used our assets to try and stop the drugs en route to the USA, tried to catch the dealers and users here, and generally screwed the whole thing up. We haven't fought a WAR on drugs... instead, we've handled it like a police action. We made an arbitrary decision not to take the fight to the enemy's home turf... created an arbitrary line on a map past which we would not pass, just like in Vietnam. With the predictable result that we've lost the war. Just like we lost Vietnam.

Vietnam was treated like a police action, and we lost. The War on Drugs was treated like a police action, and we have lost. The War in Iraq was ORIGINALLY treated like a police action, and we nearly lost that as well. Every single time we have treated a military action like a police action, we have lost.

Whereas by contrast we treated the first Gulf War as a military action and won. We treated Granada as a war, and we won. We treated WWII as a war, and we won. We treated Iraq after the surge like a war, and we won. Every single military action that has been treated like a war, we've won.

Every time we treat a war like a war and fight it like a war, we win. Every time we treat a war like a police action and place limitations on ourselves, we lose. This has been a consistent theme in American history.

And so in Afghanistan, you are suggesting that we treat the situation like a police action...

How do you think that's going to play out?

One more point... we've been losing the War on Poverty for the past 45 years. Should we give up because it's a failure, just like you think Afghanistan is?

Elliot

Your argument is spirous Elliot, "we have won because the enemy has more casualties than we do". Your own leaders have said that without more troops you will loose so obviously the situation isn't as you perceive. Yes, in the early days you extracted a heavy price from the enemy, but those are past glories. The enemy didn't accept your contention that he was defeated. This enemy has the sense to know they cannot win a large scale battle but neither can you secure the country, because they have effectively neutralised the value of your heavy weapons

You fail to realise you are not just fighting a few thousand fanatics, but a tribal people who rally when threatened. Your successes against the tribal people of your own nation has clouded your judgement. Many of the people you fight have been driven out and they live in camps on the other side of the border. If you think this is easy take a look across that border at the Pakistani campaign, they have the same idea as you, the enemy has more casualties than we do so we are winning, but nothing decisive has happened, there hasn't even been an engagement of any size, the enemy has just faded away.

If you leave Afghanistan then what remains is a few thousand fanatics with only their own people to fight

You made a statement... that we are losing in Afghanistan. By what measure do you make that statement?

Because the tribes MIGHT rally to each other when they are in trouble? They didn't during the first 5 years of the War in Afghanistan when everyone agreed that the Taliban were getting their collective butts kicked. What makes you think that if we put the assets in place and actually fight the war as it should be fought that they will now?

And assume for a moment that the tribes DID rally to their sides... something I find highly unlikely since it hasn't happened yet, despite 8 years of opportunity... why would that matter? Do you think that those tribes constitute enough people to make it matter? How many people do you think the Taliban have on their side in Afghanistan after all the excesses of their government?

Furthermore, just because some people might go over to the Taliban's side, does that mean that we are LOSING THE WAR? If so, it is a very new definition of "losing" that has not existed at any point in military history to date.

Again, please define what you mean when you say that we are losing in Afghanistan, especially given the concrete evidence to the contrary. It's all very nice and good to say that those measures don't count... but then what DOES count instead?

Elliot

You made a statement... that we are losing in Afghanistan. By what measure do you make that statement?



I make the assessment by the same measure your own military makes the assessment. They have said they require more troops to avoid defeat because the enemy has escalated their campaign and they are being fought all over the country. What you fail to realise is that after eight years Afghanistan has not been secured and the ISAF and US forces now have a strategy to defend the towns. Once you we on the offensive now you are on the defensive and part of the problem is political. The Afghan government has no will for this fight they want you to defend them.

You see Elliot you make the mistake of thinking that when you win a battle you win the war but your enemy doesn't make the mistake of meeting you in open battle, they strike and fade away forcing you into the situation we describe as "bush fire fighting"

Actually, we have lost the drug war for the exact same reason that we are losing the war in Vietnam... we haven't put the assets where they are needed to do the job, and we've played politics instead of fighting the war.


And so in Afghanistan, you are suggesting that we treat the situation like a police action...



Elliot

What century are you living in, you lost, that's LOST, the war in Vietnam but then maybe you are confused and prepared to admit you are losing in Afghanistan. I am not suggesting Afghanistan be treated as a police action, I am suggesting that you leave Afghanistan without that final crushing absolute victory of killing the last Al Qaeda terrorist. You are in an action of diminishing returns and providing targets for the enemy because you fail to realise that Al Qaeda continues to fight there because you are there, the Taliban continue to fight there because you are there.

You cannot win the war on drugs by naplaming the Columbian jungle. That drug supply is part of an internal conflict just as the supply of opium is part of an internal conflict in Afghanistan. If you want to win the drug war in Afghanistan convert the farmers to other cash crops but to do that you need the conflict to stop. The fact is your drug problem is part of the problem which your society represents and the solutions lie in your own land, spend you money on looking after your own population and not on fighting wars and you may see an improvement.

Actually, we have lost the drug war for the exact same reason that we are losing the war in Vietnam... we haven't put the assets where they are needed to do the job, and we've played politics instead of fighting the war.

The way to win a drug war is to destroy the crop at its source. That means going into Colombia and napalming the cacao crops, bombing the drug labs, and killing the cartel leaders. We haven't done that. Instead, we have used our assets to try and stop the drugs en route to the USA, tried to catch the dealers and users here, and generally screwed the whole thing up. We haven't fought a WAR on drugs... instead, we've handled it like a police action. We made an arbitrary decision not to take the fight to the enemy's home turf... created an arbitrary line on a map past which we would not pass, just like in Vietnam. With the predictable result that we've lost the war. Just like we lost Vietnam.

Elliot


We can't win the war on drugs by ONLY getting at the source. That source will always shift. It will be like playing wac a mole. The inherent problem is human nature. Humans can get addicted, creating the demand; and as long as money is to be made, drug production, abuse, addiction will always occur. This is whether the drug is legal or not.


G&p

What century are you living in, you lost, that's LOST, the war in Vietnam but then maybe you are confused and prepared to admit you are losing in Afghanistan. I am not suggesting Afghanistan be treated as a police action, I am suggesting that you leave Afghanistan without that final crushing absolute victory of killing the last Al Qaeda terrorist. You are in an action of diminishing returns andproviding targets for the enemy because you fail to realise that Al Qaeda continues to fight there because you are there, the Taliban continue to fight there because you are there.
.

When viewed as part of the Cold War, Vietnam Nam was a battle lost but still but of a victorious campaign.

Recent history also shows that to the jihadists targets are wherever they see a vulnerability [ NYC, London, Madrid, Bali, Lebanon, ETC. ], the targets are not created by us or the military, the targets are a creation of the jihadist mindset. If the return on Afghanistan is to delay, forestall, lessen the amount of attacks in the US, then it is still worthwhile.


G&P